The Romney campaign and other Republicans say polls showing President Obama with a significant lead over their candidate are inaccurate.

They argue many mainstream polls skew in Obamas favor because of sample sizes that base 2012 turnout projections on 2008, when Democrats  and Hispanics, blacks and young voters in particular  turned out in record numbers.

I dont think [the polls] reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said in an interview.

Frustration that polls are skewed in favor of Obama has escalated among some on the right in recent weeks. One website,www.unskewedpolls.com, recently began re-weighting the mainstream polls to closer track the demographic assumptions of conservative polling outlet Rasmussen Reports. The re-weighted polls all show Romney ahead in the race, with leads of between 3 and 11 percentage points.

Democrats counter that the sample sizes used in polls are accurate because there is no reason to think the makeup of the 2012 electorate will be proportionately different than in 2008. They also point to census data that shows minorities making up a greater share of the population, something driven by the surging Hispanic population.

With African-Americans, theres no question they will turn out at the same rate, for reasons that are obvious, said Anna Greenberg, senior vice president at liberal research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Moreover, given demographic changes in this country, four years later now there are more minority and younger voters, just by natural demographic changes alone. Weve seen a more and more diverse electorate over time, she said.

Whether polls are accurately reflecting the race is critical to how it is reported, and to decisions on how millions of dollars in campaign funds will be spent in the six weeks before Election Day.

According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Obama enjoys a 3.7-percentage-point advantage over Romney in the race.

But Newhouse argues the RCP average, which is designed to neutralize outlying polls, is just an average of skewed polls that have a built-in bias for Obama.

Averaging bad polls that include skewed samples will get you a skewed result, Newhouse told The Hill.

Nobody disputes that Obama maintains big leads over Romney among blacks, Latinos and younger voters, but Republicans argue the economic downturn that has hit these groups hard is likely to lower their turnout in 2012, especially since 2008 turnout was boosted by the historic implications of electing the nations first black president.

As a result, they say, polls projecting similar turnout among these voters are inaccurate.

Dick Morris, the political consultant and pollster (who writes a column for The Hill), wrote last week that pollsters using 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples are likely to be incorrect given the turnout results that year.

Blacks made up 14 percent of the electorate in 2008, when they had traditionally cast about 11 percent of the vote, while the Latino share of the electorate rose by 1.5 percent and college-aged voters doubled their share, Morris wrote.

The problem with the polls, say conservatives, is the assumption most pollsters make on the party identification of the 2012 electorate.

In 2008, Democrats had a 7-percentage-point advantage in party identification over Republicans, which was close to the final margin of victory Obama had over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Newhouse and other Republicans say its foolish to expect a similar proportion of Democratic voters in 2012. They argue a smaller proportion of Democrats are likely to come to the polls in November, while a larger proportion of Republicans eager to deny Obama a second term can be expected to vote.

Polls that assume the makeup will be the same as 2008 dont take this into account, they say.

You had an extraordinary 2008 turnout among rural evangelicals, but Republicans stayed home in larger numbers, Newhouse said. This time you have a more enthused and energetic Republican electorate, and because of that, youre not going to see the margins go up, youll see it narrow. So instead of a 7 [percentage-point advantage for Democrats], I anticipate something smaller than that.

Those defending the accuracy of polls showing Obama with a lead argue Team Romney is overestimating the proportion of Republicans who will make up the 2012 electorate, and underestimating the proportion of minorities.

Among Hispanics in particular, Greenberg said Romneys tack to the right during the GOP primaries had recharged the group after a fair amount of softness the last couple of years, and that Democrats had seen a sustained increase in enthusiasm across the board since the convention earlier this month.

Greenberg acknowledged voter identification has narrowed, but she said Democrats still have a 5-point advantage.

Veteran GOP consultant Roger Stone, who in recent years has worked on libertarian causes, argues the polls are correct because any benefit Romney gets from lower turnout by Democratic voters is likely to be evened out by softer conservative turnout.

Romney doesnt have a lock on conservatives, Stone said. And hes losing some, just a couple of points, to [Libertarian candidate] Gary Johnson. Thats a problem.

Some Democrats argue that polls that show Romney and Obama running neck and neck are skewed because not enough of those polled rely on cellphones.

If theres less intensity among Democrats, thats balanced out by lack of cellphones in samples done by [conservative polling outlet] Rasmussen, Stone said. Theyre under-sampling cellphone users, who we know are usually young, black, Latino or lower-middle-class working people.

The race is always going to be perceived as competitive, which it still is, Stone said. But the president has a slight edge.

“With African-Americans, theres no question they will turn out at the same rate, for reasons that are obvious, said Anna Greenberg, senior vice president at liberal research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.”

What “obvious reasons” is she talking about? This may be the most racist statement I’ve heard reported with a straight face in some time.

4
posted on 09/25/2012 4:07:59 AM PDT
by RightFighter
(It was all for nothing.)

1) I see no evidence so far anywhere that the turnout on the Dem side will equal 08. I'm at a college campus and see no enthusiasm for Obama that I saw in 08. Not close. I personally think that the "yut" vote could fall by 40% (including defectors to Romney.) Morris is right about blacks. Their numbers will be down, closer to 04. 2) Gary Johnson will siphon as many druggies from Obama as from Romney. I am concerned about Goode in VA, but history shows, whether Anderson in 2000, Perot in 92, Nader in 2000, that 3d party candidates poll better than they perform (the exception---and it was important---was Perot in 1992). I think he'll end up with 1-2 as people see the horrible alternative of Obama. 3) it's early, but we are seeing nothing of the advantage Dems had in absentee voting in 08. 4) a massive shift in voter registration (2 million ) has occurred in our direction, not even counting the additional shift of Dems to indies.

In short, so far I think the polls are badly off.

5
posted on 09/25/2012 4:08:18 AM PDT
by LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))

Though it might help with many of us dispirited Cons, I think I'd as soon have some of the RATS continue to believe that it is "in the bag" for Dear Reader and possibly think that under the circumstances, there would be no need for them to show up and vote?

With African-Americans, theres no question they will turn out at the same rate, for reasons that are obvious RACIST, said Anna Greenberg, senior vice president at liberal research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

With African-Americans, theres no question they will turn out at the same rate, for reasons that are obvious, said Anna Greenberg, senior vice president at liberal research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

I wonder if Anna Greenberg would be willing to elaborate on those reasons and if she's clever enough to phrase her explanation so it's not too obvious that racism is the primary reason why so many black Obama voters are willing to double down on their terribly destructive choice of an inexperienced socialist for that job.

10
posted on 09/25/2012 6:54:40 AM PDT
by Pollster1
(Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)

I live in a county (in NJ) where Perot beat Clinton in 92 with Bush winning 60%. However I live in a town with the most dems in the county. In 2008 there were lots of Obama signs, bumper stickers and so on, even a couple of Obama block parties.

This year? NOTHING.

I don’t doubt that Obama will win NJ, however the enthusiasm for Obama is way down. He won’t get the turnout he did in 2008.

I certainly hope that the Catholic vote is swings hugely toward Romney in all states, but most especially where it can make the difference in the presidential contest. Here in NY, political talk is pretty quiet in my church, even though I know my priest (who came from Poland) is highly concerned about the creeping socialism and the moral aspects of this administration. I am happy that Cardinal Dolan is being as strong a spokesman as he is about the moral issues that are constantly being broached by this administration, as well as the NYC administration. Unfortunately, in NY, the Catholic vote alone can’t swing the election.

I am happy to hear you suggest that it may be a big factor in Conn.

14
posted on 09/25/2012 5:58:55 PM PDT
by AFPhys
((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.